EU’s public watchdog calls for more lawmaking transparency

The EU’s public watchdog Thursday called on the union’s main institutions to be more open about their lawmaking processes.

European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly said the closed-door talks known as “trilogues” — in which representatives from the European Commission, Parliament and member countries meet to pre-cook agreements on legislation — were “efficient” but too cloaked in secrecy.

After a year-long investigation, O’Reilly called the trilogues “an important tool for reaching agreement” between the EU institutions, “allowing 85 percent of laws to be agreed at an early stage.” But she said there needed to be more public information about them.

“It is difficult to find out when trilogues are taking place, what is being discussed and by whom without a great deal of time and effort,” she said.

While stopping short of demanding that those meetings be public, she called for more disclosure about them before and after they occur. That includes publishing the dates and agendas of the meetings beforehand, as well as the names of the decision-makers present in the meetings.

O’Reilly also said the institutions should be more open about detailing the Parliament and Council negotiating positions on Commission proposals — information that lobbyists would also find enlightening.

“Making this information available should enable citizens to hold their representatives to account and to engage effectively in the legislative process,” O’Reilly said, adding that she did want to slow down the EU’s lawmaking machine. “My proposals also allow for legislators to have the political space they need to negotiate, deliberate and to come to agreement.”

The ombudsman asked the institutions to respond before the end of 2016 on her proposals.

Authors:

Related stories on these topics:

me

😀 not happening Emily.

Posted on 7/17/16 | 2:34 PM CET

me2

How do public agendas help?! Another digital pile of papers no one outside the bubble will ever read. Also, positions of the institutions?! They are public. EP negotiaties on the basis of the report adopted and the Council on the basis of the general approach or common position. It’s as easy as that. Why would you want to know who is sitting in the room? For the EP it’S rapporteur plus shadows – fine,put that on the website (already there), for council the presidency (also there) but how would that help anyone? Trialogues are highly technical, complex and above all boring 99% of the time. The added value of an increase in transparency is like in general economics: dimishing…

Posted on 7/18/16 | 4:23 PM CET

Nathan

“The added value of an increase in transparency is like in general economics: dimishing…”

Wow, that sounds like something you’ve just made up. Without transparency how will you monitor for corruption in all its forms or is the importance of that like in general economics: diminishing…?